Management Research Review

The impact of transformational leadership on employees’ creativity: The

mediating role of perceived organizational support
Taghrid S. Suifan, Ayman Bahjat Abdallah, Marwa Al Janini,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Taghrid S. Suifan, Ayman Bahjat Abdallah, Marwa Al Janini, (2018) "The impact of transformational
leadership on employees’ creativity: The mediating role of perceived organizational support",
Management Research Review, Vol. 41 Issue: 1, pp.113-132, https://doi.org/10.1108/
MRR-02-2017-0032
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-02-2017-0032
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

Downloaded on: 07 March 2018, At: 08:21 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 105 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 180 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2015),"Transformational leadership and employee creativity: Mediating role of creative self-efficacy
and moderating role of knowledge sharing", Management Decision, Vol. 53 Iss 5 pp. 894-910 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2014-0464">https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2014-0464</a>
(2011),"Transformational leadership, leader support, and employee creativity", Leadership
&amp; Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32 Iss 7 pp. 656-672 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/01437731111169988">https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731111169988</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

Employees’
The impact of transformational creativity
leadership on employees’
creativity
The mediating role of perceived 113
organizational support Received 7 February 2017
Revised 7 May 2017
Taghrid S. Suifan, Ayman Bahjat Abdallah and Marwa Al Janini 30 June 2017
Accepted 2 August 2017
Business Management, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

Abstract
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of transformational leadership on employees’
creativity in the Jordanian banking sector through the mediating effect of perceived organizational support.
Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on survey data collected from 369 employees
working in Jordanian banks. Validity and reliability analyses were performed, and direct and indirect effects
were tested using structural equation modeling.
Findings – The results indicate that transformational leadership positively affects some dimensions of
employees’ creativity and perceived organizational support. However, perceived organizational support is
found to not be significantly related to some dimensions of employees’ creativity. Additionally, the mediating
effect of perceived organizational support on the relationship between transformational leadership and some
dimensions of employees’ creativity is found to not be significant.
Originality/value – This paper is one of the first to examine the relationship between transformational
leadership and employees’ creativity through perceived organizational support, especially in an Arab country
and in the banking sector.
Keywords Transformational leadership, Jordan, Banks, Structural equation modelling,
Perceived organizational support, Employees’ creativity, Organizational theory and behaviour
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The current intense competition and dynamic environment have forced organizations to rethink
their ways of managing to get the best from employees. Employees’ creativity has emerged as a
possible source of competitive advantage because it enhances organizational performance and
boosts success and survival, based on its ability to create new knowledge and innovation
(Ibrahim et al., 2016; Hyypia and Parjanen, 2013). Some researchers believe employees’ creativity
can be supported by leadership styles, as leaders primarily strive to promote employees’ creative
abilities so they can find creative solutions to problems (Mittal and Dhar, 2015). In particular,
transformational leadership is closely related to creativity, because such leadership may inspire
subordinates to exceed their abilities by providing a better way of completing tasks and solving
problems (Cheung and Wong, 2011). In addition, it has been argued that perceived organizational
support can increase employees’ creativity by enhancing organizational commitment, improving
performance and lowering withdrawal behavior in return for fair practices and supervisory Management Research Review
support (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Vol. 41 No. 1, 2018
pp. 113-132
Although several studies found a positive effect of transformational leadership on © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8269
employees’ creativity (Jyoti and Dev, 2015; Mittal and Dhar, 2015), this relationship has DOI 10.1108/MRR-02-2017-0032
 MRR rarely been investigated in Jordan, and in the banking sector, in particular. Moreover, no
41,1 previous studies, to the best of our knowledge, have investigated the mediating effect of
perceived organizational support on the relationship between transformational leadership
and employees’ creativity. This paper addresses these gaps by investigating these
relationships in the banking sector in Jordan. The banking sector is selected because it has
become one of the most important pillars supporting the country’s economy by promoting
114 stability and improving economic growth (Al-Fayoumi and Abuzayed, 2009). The
accomplishments of the banking sector have contributed to accomplishments in the
Jordanian economy and have reflected the intensive efforts aimed at achieving financial,
monetary and social stability in Jordan (Association of Banks in Jordan, 2007). Despite
recent growth, Jordanian banks are considered relatively weak in creativity, particularly in
the process of interaction with clients (Salaymeh, 2013).
The findings of this research will help organizations, and specifically banks in Jordan, to
better understand employees’ creativity and how it can increase banks’ effectiveness.
Additionally, they will provide further evidence of the effect of transformational leadership
on employees’ creativity. Moreover, this study sheds light on the mediating effect of
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

perceived organizational support on the relationship between transformational leadership

and employees’ creativity.

1.1 Transformational leadership

Today, most business environments demand a better understanding of leadership (Obeidat
et al., 2014; Sanhueza, 2011). Moreover, transformational leadership has been the most
supported leadership theory over the past two decades (Avolio et al., 2009; Sosik and Jung,
2010), because it articulates a compelling vision, offers clear objectives and provides
followers with the support and stimulation needed to work (Bycio et al., 1995).
Transformational leadership has been proven to be the most successful type of leadership
because it elevates followers’ maturity level and ideals, as well as their concerns for
achievement, self-actualization and the well-being of the organization and society (Erkutlu,
2008). It was initiated by Bass (1985) and has become a very popular concept in recent years;
many definitions of transformational leadership have been provided. Transformational
leadership involves creating a vision and fostering a sense of belonging in an organization
(Peachey et al., 2014). It is also about how leaders positively imagine future scenarios for
their organizations and help employees improve their self-confidence by realizing their
potential, communicating an achievable mission and vision, identifying needs and working
together to satisfy those needs (Peterson et al., 2009). According to Bass and Avolio (1994),
transformational leadership has four dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Idealized influence
refers to leaders becoming admired, respected and emulated role models (Bass and Avolio,
1994); it emphasizes trust, values and ethics. Inspirational motivation consists of leaders
providing meaning and challenge to followers’ work and using inspiring messages to arouse
emotions (Mittal and Dhar, 2015). Intellectual stimulation challenges old assumptions,
beliefs and traditions and encourages new ways of thinking (Guay, 2013). Finally,
individualized consideration refers to leaders who consider the needs, abilities and goals of
followers and provide coaching and mentoring (Guay, 2013). In the current study,
transformational leadership is measured using these four dimensions.

1.2 Employees’ creativity

Creativity has become a central theme of a variety of tasks, occupations and industries
because of its importance, which has been firmly established in organizations (Abdallah
 et al., 2016; Abdallah and Matsui, 2009). Organizations that fail to be innovative or creative Employees’
may risk losing competitiveness and sustainability (Abdallah and Phan, 2007; Tidd, 2001). creativity
Creativity involves bringing something new to the organization, which might mean
something unique, unusual, original; a new point of view; thinking outside the box; and
contributing something that was not there previously (Shrafat et al., 2016; Shehadeh et al.,
2016; Martens, 2011). Creative employees can discover customers’ hidden needs and deal
with problems creatively and effectively, eventually creating superior performance (Obeidat
et al., 2017; Grewal et al., 2009; Verhoef et al., 2009). Creativity involves employees’ ability 115
and capacity to create and develop new and helpful thoughts about the company’s products,
services, practices and procedures (Abdallah and Matsui, 2007; Shalley and Gilson, 2004).
There are four major dimensions of individual creativity within organizations: expertise,
divergent thinking, psychological empowerment and rewards (Ozaralli, 2015; Chen et al.,
2012; Amabile, 1988). Expertise involves having both a specialized knowledge of a domain
and the ability to use that knowledge to deal with problems (Bereiter and Scardamalia,
1993). Moreover, Ericsson et al. (2007) assert that expertise is not just knowing but also the
ability to act. When employees become experts, they can pass on general knowledge to other
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

employees, which will help the other employees to develop skills and encourage them to be
creative (Winkelen and McDermott, 2010). Divergent thinking is the process of generating
many different ideas, and it can distinguish creative problem-solving from other kinds of
problem-solving. Managers may influence employees’ ability to think divergently because
they become role models for employees in thinking divergently. Divergent thinking is
greatly related to creativity and is regarded as one of its major drivers (Williams, 2004).
Psychological empowerment refers to the behavior of leaders in sharing power and
assigning more responsibility and autonomy to subordinates, which in turn will enhance the
subordinates’ creativity (Ozaralli, 2015). According to Spreitzer (1995), psychological
empowerment is a significant predictor of creative behavior, and it includes four aspects:
(1) meaning, which involves one’s feeling that his/her work goal is personally
meaningful and important;
(2) competence, which is one’s ability to successfully perform tasks with skills;
(3) self-determination, which is the amount of control one has over one’s work actions;
and
(4) finally, impact, which refers to how confident individuals are that they can make a
difference in work outcomes.

Moreover, according to Zhang and Bartol (2010), psychological empowerment ultimately

influences employees’ creativity by enhancing employees’ willingness to engage in the creative
processes. Specifically, when employees perceive that their job requirements are meaningful and
personally important, they will be motivated to spend more effort on understanding problems
from various perspectives, searching for solutions using a wide amount of information from
multiple resources and generating many alternatives by connecting diverse sources of
information (Shalley and Gilson, 2004; Jabri, 1991). Rewards are the fourth major dimension of
individual creativity. When creativity is supported by the provision of incentives, employees
exhibit creative performance more frequently (Chen et al., 2012). Rewards range from a simple
rise in salary to innovative non-financial rewards; the two have different effects on employees, so
an organization must design the right compensation system that will encourage employees to
behave creatively (Markova and Ford, 2011). In this study, individual creativity is measured
along the four major dimensions discussed in this section: expertise, divergent thinking,
psychological empowerment and rewards.
 MRR 1.3 Perceived organizational support
41,1 Perceived organizational support has been described as employees’ conviction that
their organizations value their contributions and care about their well-being (Simosi,
2012). According to Krishnan and Mary (2012), organizational support is defined as
sensitivity and the opinion of employees regarding the extent to which their
involvement is valued and recognized by their organizations. Moreover, organizational
116 support indicates how employees perceive that their organizations respect their work
and have concern for their well-being (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Shore and Shore,
1995; Eisenberger et al., 1986). Creativity often entails risk-taking behavior;
organizational support can promote employees’ creativity indirectly (Neves and
Eisenberger, 2014). It is believed that organizational support involves the exchange
between organizations and employees (Ahmed et al., 2013), where organizational
commitment toward employees creates a sense of support (Baran et al., 2012).
Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) suggest two major work experience antecedents of
perceived organizational support: perceived supervisor support and procedural justice.
Perceived supervisor support proposes that supervisors behave as agents of organizations
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

and are responsible for evaluating employees and communicating organizational goals and
values to them. Thus, employees receive supervisors’ treatment of them as an indication of
organizational support, implying that perceived supervisor support leads to organizational
support, not the reverse (Eisenberger et al., 2002). Procedural justice is the fairness of the
organization in distributing resources (Greenberg, 1990). When employees are repeatedly
exposed to fair procedures, they feel that they are supported by their organizations (Shore
and Shore, 1995). Procedural justice suggests that an organization’s appreciation of
employees’ rights contributes positively to perceived organizational support (Fu and Lihua,
2012). In this study, perceived supervisor support and procedural justice will be used to
measure perceived organizational support.

2. Framework and research hypotheses

2.1 Research framework
The theoretical model that directs this study is illustrated in Figure 1. We posit that
transformational leadership has a positive impact on employees’ creativity directly
and indirectly through perceived organizational support. We also propose a positive

Figure 1.
The research model
 impact of transformational leadership on perceived organizational support. Additionally, a Employees’
positive impact of perceived organizational support on employees’ creativity is proposed. creativity
2.2 Transformational leadership and employees’ creativity
Transformational leaders can enrich and reinforce values among people, and they are
described as myth-makers and tale-tellers (Rao, 2014). Moreover, transformational
leaders are analytical, effective, result-oriented and direct followers of a new set of
behaviors that promote change and creativity in organizations (Abbas et al., 2012).
117
Transformational leadership emphasizes an individually considerate behavior that
motivates followers to share ideas and contribute to decision-making. It also
emphasizes an inspirational and stimulating behavior that encourages critical
thinking and the development of individual solutions (Schweitzer, 2014). Leaders can
create a climate where creative ideas are more likely to emerge by stimulating
followers to develop new ideas, displaying confidence and not blaming them when
new ideas fail (Herrmann and Felfe, 2014). In addition, transformational leadership
concentrates on the role of leaders as motivators and providers of support for their
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

followers, to help them develop and succeed in their jobs. Several researchers have
indicated that transformational leaders play a vital role in giving support and
encouraging motivation to employees, to engage employees and demonstrate
creativity (Gong et al., 2009; Elkins and Keller, 2003; Shin and Zhou, 2003):
H1. Transformational leadership positively affects employees’ creativity.

2.3 Transformational leadership and perceived organizational support

Many studies have investigated the relationship between transformational leadership and
perceived organizational support (Mittal and Dhar, 2015; Herrmann and Felfe, 2014; Hu
et al., 2013). It has been argued, based on the perceived organizational support theory, that
there is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and perceived
organizational support. A leader is an agent of the organization, and his/her
transformational leadership behavior is an indicator to subordinates of positive treatment
received from the organization, leading to a higher perceived organizational support
(Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011; Eisenberger et al., 1986). According to Stinglhamber
et al. (2015), the transformational leader mentors his/her followers, considers their individual
needs and allows them to flourish in a supportive environment. Moreover, such leaders
exhibit the need for a higher standard, expectations and challenges and encourage
subordinates to creatively seek out new opportunities and deal with complex problems.
Overall, the transformational leader tends to display trust in followers’ abilities and to value
their contributions. The climate of supportive leadership that is created among subordinates
should expand to the whole organization, leading to higher perceived organizational
support:
H2. Transformational leadership positively affects perceived organizational support.

2.4 Perceived organizational support and employees’ creativity

Because of the competitive business environment, organizations must encourage employees’
creative performance to survive. Perceived organizational support plays an important role in
employees’ creativity, because it tends to increase the likelihood of creative output (Zhou
and George, 2001). Moreover, perceived supervisor support increases creative behavior by
 MRR increasing employees’ interest in their work (Appu and Sia, 2015). Based on the norm of
41,1 reciprocity, perceived organizational support theory argues that employees who believe they
will receive higher levels of support tend to perform better, because they feel obligated to
care about their organization and help it reach its goals and objectives by demonstrating
positive behaviors toward the organization (Trybou et al., 2014; Eisenberger et al., 1986).
Therefore, a third hypothesis is proposed:
118 H3. Perceived organizational support positively affects employees’ creativity.

2.5 The mediating effect of perceived organizational support on the relationship between
transformational leadership and employees’ creativity
No previous studies were found that discussed the mediating role of perceived
organizational support between transformational leadership and employees’ creativity.
However, as employees recognize that their organization provides them with the
support and recognition they need, in addition to the managers and leaders valuing
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

their contribution and caring about their well-being, this recognition will create a sense
of obligation in employees to care about the organization’s welfare and help it achieve
its goals in the most creative way (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Rhoades et al., 2001).
Moreover, as perceived organizational support boosts employees’ belief that their
organizations value their achievement of organizational goals, it will, in turn, promote
employees’ creativity (Waseem, 2010). According to Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002),
there are three processes underlying organizational support. First, when employees
recognize that managers value their contribution and well-being, they feel compelled to
repay through behaviors. Second, caring and respect help satisfy important individual
needs for affiliation and approval at work. A third view is that an organization’s
recognition and approval can support employees’ belief that their performance will be
recognized and rewarded. As transformational leaders succeed in promoting an
environment of organizational support, employees will tend to behave creatively to
enhance the competitive advantage of their organizations. Therefore, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H4. Perceived organizational support positively mediates the relationship between
transformational leadership and employees’ creativity.

3. Methodology
3.1 Respondents
The research population consisted of all 25 banks operating in Jordan, as reported by
the Association of Banks in Jordan (2013). The unit of analysis for the current study is
an individual employee. The employees working in these banks total 19,000. For this
population, a sample of 377 is considered representative (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013). To
achieve the targeted sample size, 400 questionnaires were distributed to the banks
based on proportional sampling. In each bank, the questionnaires were distributed to
employees using simple random sampling. The number of questionnaires returned
totals 380. However, 11 questionnaires were eliminated because of incomplete
information. Thus, the final number of usable questionnaires was 369, representing a
response rate of 92.25 per cent. This response rate is considered high compared with
other empirical studies conducted in Jordan (Abdallah et al., 2017; Al-Sa’di et al., 2017;
Ayoub et al., 2017; Suifan et al., 2016). Table I reports profiles of the respondents.
 Category Frequency Percentage (100%)
Employees’
creativity
Gender
Male 217 58.8
Female 152 41.2
Total 369 100
Job position
Junior 227 61.5
119
Senior 94 25.5
Supervisor 48 13
Total 369 100
Experience
Less than 5 years 144 39
5 to less than 10 years 123 33.3
10 to less than 15 years 60 16.3
More than 15 years 42 11.4
Total 369 100
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

Education
Diploma 32 8.7
Bachelor 280 75.9 Table I.
Graduate studies 57 15.4 Profiles of
Total 369 100 respondents

3.2 Procedures
A survey questionnaire was prepared to collect data for the current study. The
questionnaire was initially prepared in English and was translated into Arabic by the
authors. In addition, the questionnaire was reviewed by five professors of business
administration and pilot-tested by five employees in different banks. Necessary
modifications were made based on feedback received from professors and employees. The
contact information of each bank was obtained from the official websites by the researchers.
After that, each bank’s human resources department or public relations department was
contacted by one of the researchers by telephone, those who would be mainly responsible for
the distribution of the questionnaires inside the banks. Respondents were asked to evaluate
their agreement or disagreement with the question items provided using a five-point Likert
scale, where 5 indicated strong agreement and 1 indicated strong disagreement.

3.3 Measures
The questionnaire was divided into two parts: the first part contained questions
regarding demographic information of the respondents and the second part included
question items related to the study variables. Transformational leadership was measured
using 12 question items that covered its four dimensions (i.e. idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration).
These items were adapted from Kirkbride (2006). Perceived organizational support was
measured using seven items that covered its two dimensions (i.e. procedural justice and
perceived supervisor support). The items were adapted from Leventhal (1980) and
Rhoades et al. (2001). Employees’ creativity was measured using 19 items that covered its
four dimensions; experience included four items that were adapted from Nilsson et al.
(2013). Divergent thinking included three items adapted from Runco et al. (2001).
 MRR Psychological empowerment included four items adapted from Spreitzer (1995). Finally,
41,1 rewards included eight items: four items to measure intrinsic rewards adapted from
Aletraris (2010) and Eisenberger and Aselage (2009) and four items to measure extrinsic
rewards adapted from Malik et al. (2015). Measurement scales with short sentences were
intentionally selected to reduce the length of the questionnaire and encourage potential
respondents to participate. In addition, some modifications were made to the original
120 question items to ensure their understandability by Jordanian respondents.

3.4 Validity and reliability

Construct validity was evaluated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. We
started with exploratory factor analysis (EFA), with principal component analysis and the
promax rotation method. All the question items were entered simultaneously, and the pattern
matrix revealed ten distinct factors after the deletion of some items that loaded onto more than
one factor. All the retained items loaded onto their respective factors, with factor loadings
greater than 0.40. Furthermore, eigenvalues for all the ten factors were greater than 1.
Cronbach’s a-coefficient indicated an acceptable level of reliability of the measurement
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

scales, with a > 0.60 implying satisfactory internal consistency (Hair et al., 2010).
Next, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed based on EFA results using
Amos 20. Some question items were further deleted to improve model fit indices.
Additionally, we had to delete two dimensions of employees’ creativity (i.e. divergent
thinking and rewards) because the composite reliability values for the two constructs were
below 0.70. In addition, the average variance extracted (AVE) values for both constructs
were below 0.50. The deletion of individual items did not improve the situation, and we had
to delete the two constructs. The final construct items are presented in Table II below. The
final model fit indices using first-order constructs fitted the data reasonably well (X2 =
271.48; df = 161; X2/df =1.68; CFI = 0.964; GFI = 0.937; NNFI = 0.954; NFI = 0.918;
RMSEA = 0.043; and RMR = 0.037). The normed chi-square of 1.68 was below the
maximum value of 3.0 (Byrne, 2010; Bollen, 1989). The comparative fit index (CFI), goodness
of fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI) and non-normed fit index (NNFI) were greater than
the suggested minimum value of 0.90 (Kline, 2011; Byrne, 2010; Garver and Mentzer, 1999).
The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.043 and the root mean square
residual (RMR) was 0.037, indicating acceptable values (Kline, 2011; Byrne, 2010; Garver
and Mentzer, 1999). These indices implied a sufficient level of unidimensionality and
convergent validity. Moreover, the standardized coefficients for all the items were greater
than twice their standard errors, providing further support for convergent validity (Byrne,
2010; Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). In addition, all the factor loadings were higher than
0.50. Likewise, AVE values for all the constructs were greater than 0.50, providing further
support for convergent validity (Kline, 2011; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The composite
reliability for all the constructs was greater than 0.70, providing an acceptable level of
reliability (Kline, 2011; Byrne, 2010; Garver and Mentzer, 1999; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
The final model fit indices using second-order constructs (i.e. transformational
leadership, perceived organizational support and employees’ creativity) also fitted the data
reasonably well (X2 = 322.79; df = 178; X2/df = 1.81; CFI = 0.953; GFI = 0.924; NNFI = 0.945;
NFI = 0.903; RMSEA = 0.047 and RMR = 0.045). These indices indicated a sufficient level of
unidimensionality and convergent validity. Moreover, all the factor loadings were greater
than 0.50. Similarly, AVE values for all the dimensions exceeded 0.50, providing additional
evidence of convergent validity (Byrne, 2010; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The composite
reliability for the three second-order constructs exceeded 0.70, indicating a satisfactory level
of reliability (Kline, 2011; Garver and Mentzer, 1999; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
 Item number Item descriptions
Employees’
creativity
Idealized influence (Kirkbride, 2006)
II1 My leader has demonstrated unusual competence.
II2 My leader celebrates our achievement.
II3 My leader addresses crises “head on”
II4 My leader uses his power for positive gain
Inspirational motivation (Kirkbride, 2006)
121
IM1 My leader presents an optimistic and attainable view of the future
IM2 My leader molds expectation and shapes meaning
IM3 My leader creates a sense of priorities and purpose
Intellectual stimulation (Kirkbride, 2006)
IS1 My leader encourages us to re-examine assumptions
IS2 My leader is willing to put forth or entertain seemingly foolish ideas
Individualized consideration (Kirkbride, 2006)
IC2 My leader is an active listener
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

IC3 My leader promotes self-development

Experience (Nilsson et al., 2013)
EX1 I encourage and support others at work
EX2 I decide my own work pace
Psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995)
PE3 I have the autonomy to determine how I do my job
PE4 I think I have a significant impact on what happens in my department
Procedural justice (Leventhal, 1980)
PJ1 Procedural justice is applied consistently
PJ2 Procedural justice is free of bias
PJ3 Procedural justice is based on accurate performance
Supervisor support (Rhoades et al., 2001)
SS1 My supervisor cares about my opinion
SS2 My supervisor really cares about my well-being Table II.
SS3 My supervisor strongly considers my goals and values Measurement items

Table III shows the standardized factor loadings of EFA and CFA, Cronbach’s alpha values
and composite reliability for the final constructs.
Discriminant validity was evaluated by confirming that the square root of each AVE
value is higher than the absolute correlation value between that construct and other
constructs. All the constructs met this criterion, providing strong support for
discriminant validity (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007; Fornell and Larcker, 1981), as shown
in Table IV for the second-order constructs. Moreover, the AVE value for each construct
was greater than the maximum shared squared variance (MSV) and average shared
squared variance (ASV) values, indicating additional support for discriminant validity
(Hair et al., 2010).

4. Results
Structural equation modeling using Amos 20 was applied to test the research
hypotheses. We started by testing the direct effect of transformational leadership on
employees’ creativity (H1) without including the mediating variable. The estimate of
the standardized regression weight (beta value) from transformational leadership to
 MRR Item Standard Loadings Loadings Cronbach’s Composite
41,1 Construct number Mean deviation EFA CFA alpha reliability

Idealized influence II1 3.70 0.800 0.795 0.782 0.794 0.801

II2 0.766 0.648
II3 0.867 0.767
II4 0.795 0.627
122
Inspirational motivation IM1 3.57 0.755 0.562 0.749 0.759 0.757
IM2 0.986 0.677
IM3 0.475 0.715

Intellectual stimulation IS1 3.46 0.847 0.612 0.928 0.723 0.712

IS2 0.987 0.503

Individualized IC2 3.66 0.879 0.941 0.743 0.786 0.748

consideration IC3 0.879 0.803
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

Experience EX1 3.94 0.754 0.844 0.740 0.677 0.702

EX2 0.849 0.694

Psychological PE3 3.77 0.807 0.854 0.752 0.683 0.715

empowerment PE4 0.849 0.690

Procedural justice PJ1 3.10 0.893 0.834 0.802 0.869 0.871

PJ2 0.903 0.863
PJ3 0.847 0.830

Supervisor support SS1 3.40 0.836 0.824 0.775 0.850 0.852

SS2 0.927 0.802
SS3 0.894 0.855

Transformational IIb 3.60 0.636 0.837 0.892 0.777 0.876

leadershipa IMb 0.845 0.918
ISb 0.689 0.655
ICb 0.735 0.712

Perceived organizational PJb 3.25 0.761 0.881 0.745 0.709 0.776

supporta SSb 0.881 0.845

Employees’ creativitya EXb 3.85 0.625 0.801 0.725 0.642 0.721

Table III. PEb 0.801 0.568
Reliability and
validity of the
constructs Note: aSecond-order factors; bsecond-order indicators

Construct AVE MSV ASV 1 2 3

1. TL 0.644 0.434 0.379 0.802

2. POS 0.635 0.324 0.274 0.569 0.796
Table IV. 3. EC 0.624 0.412 0.343 0.619 0.473 0.789
Assessment of
discriminant validity Note: Square root of AVE is on the diagonal
 employees’ creativity was positive and significant ( b = 0.654, P < 0.01); therefore, H1 Employees’
was supported. creativity
To test the mediating effect and the other two hypotheses, a bootstrapping re-
sampling method was applied (Shrout and Bloger, 2002). This method is preferred to
the procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986), which has been widely criticized
(MacKinnon, 2008). A total of 5,000 bootstrap samples were selected with 95 per cent
bias-corrected confidence intervals (Hayes, 2013). The hypothesis regarding the
indirect effect is supported or rejected based on the lower and upper bounds of 123
confidence intervals. If the number zero is contained between the two bounds, then the
alternative hypothesis is rejected with 95 per cent confidence that the indirect effect is
zero. If the number zero is not contained between the lower and upper intervals, then
the alternative hypothesis regarding the indirect effect is accepted. The direct effect of
transformational leadership on employees’ creativity with the presence of perceived
organizational support (the mediating variable) was reduced but still significant ( b =
0.578, P < 0.001), indicating that only partial mediation is possible. The bootstrapping
results revealed that the standardized indirect effect of transformational leadership on
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

employees’ creativity through perceived organizational support was 0.082 with

confidence intervals between 0.100 and 0.246. Because these confidence values
contain zero, H4 was not supported.
The results of the mediation model indicate that the effect of transformational leadership
on perceived organizational support is positive and significant ( b = 0.569, P < 0.001);
therefore, H2 was supported. However, the effect of perceived organizational support on
employees’ creativity was not significant ( b = 0.144, P > 0.05); therefore, H3 is not
supported. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate direct and indirect models.
Though not hypothesized, additional analysis was performed to investigate whether
perceived organizational support and employees’ creativity differ between males and
females, as well as among age groups and educational levels. No significant differences were
found and, therefore, the results are not reported.

Figure 2.
Transformational
leadership –
employees’ creativity
model

Figure 3.
Transformational
leadership –
perceived
organizational
support – employees’
creativity model
 MRR 5. Discussion
41,1 The results indicate that transformational leadership positively affects some dimensions of
employees’ creativity, consistent with previous studies (Jyoti and Dev, 2015; Gupta and
Singh, 2012; Cheung and Wong, 2011). This finding highlights the essential role of
transformational leaders in inspiring employees to generate innovative ideas and solutions.
Transformational leaders, who show concern for their employees’ well-being, problems and
124 wants, enhance employees’ ability to generate creative ideas and be open to new, unique
perspectives (Shin and Zhou, 2003). Creative employees are a valuable source for
organizations’ survival in today’s competitive environment, and transformational leaders
help to create an environment that supports and enhances some aspects of employees’
creativity. Moreover, such leaders are more likely to encourage employees to challenge the
traditional way of doing things by interacting with them and giving them necessary
information, which enhances creativity (Mittal and Dhar, 2015; Jyoti and Dev, 2015;
Robinson and Beesley, 2010).
The findings also reveal that transformational leadership positively affects perceived
organizational support, consistent with previous studies (Stinglhamber et al., 2015;
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011; Eisenberger et al., 1986). Transformational leaders

boost employees’ feeling of being supported and valued by the organization. When
employees feel strongly associated with their managers, they tend to be emotionally
attached to their organizations. Moreover, transformational leadership is supportive because
leaders tend to trust followers’ abilities in dealing with problems and to value their
contributions, which leads to higher perceived organizational support (Stinglhamber et al.,
2015).
The results show that perceived organizational support is not significantly related to
some dimensions of employees’ creativity. This result is inconsistent with Ibrahim et al.
(2016), who found that perceived organizational support significantly affected the
creativity of employees because of motivation to enhance their organizations’
performance and efficiency. Moreover, the result is inconsistent with the arguments of
McLean (2005), who asserted that providing high levels of support helps employees direct
their behaviors toward being proactive in handling complex problems and new situations
and in thinking of new ways to do things, which leads to a higher level of creativity in
organizations. However, it seems that this is only true in theory; the results of the current
study indicate that perceived organizational support has not affected some dimensions of
employees’ creativity. This could be justified by the lack of such organizational support
or by the type of such support, which is not perceived by employees. Many organizations
provide little or no support for employees’ creativity and do not encourage empowerment
and knowledge sharing (Ibrahim et al., 2016). In addition, many managers in Jordan
believe that delegating authority to employees represents a serious threat to their
managerial positions, which hinders the creativity process. Similarly, many managers in
Jordan believe that providing support and appreciation for subordinates affects their
reverence. This is consistent with the findings of Sawalha and Meaton (2012), who noted
Jordanian managers’ unwillingness to involve employees in decision-making processes
and reluctance to value employees’ contributions, which they attributed to the national
culture.
The findings also indicate that perceived organizational support insignificantly mediates
the relationship between transformational leadership and some dimensions of employees’
creativity. This result is inconsistent with the results of Self et al. (2007), who asserted that
perceived organizational support indicates that employees feel that their organizations value
and trust them and are concerned for their well-being. Our result could be justified by
 cultural differences because many Arab managers are unwilling to give employees the Employees’
support they need to be creative (Sawalha and Meaton, 2012). Moreover, many Arab creativity
managers are unwilling to become leaders to employees; instead of using power and
authority, leaders use guidance, support and encouragement. Leaders who rely on
supportive techniques instead of authority and power will motivate employees to achieve
organizational goals and deal with uncertainties in the most effective manner (Ackoff and
Pourdehnad, 2009). This managerial culture in Jordan could be attributed to the fact that
most Jordanian organizations are family-owned. Manager-owners in Jordan traditionally 125
behave as owners with full power and authority but not as leaders. This result could also be
justified by the fact that the measures of creativity in this study, experience and
psychological empowerment, can also be viewed as measures of independence in the
workplace, where job independence can be defined as the degree of freedom employees have
over their jobs (Hackman and Oldham, 1976). Indeed, perceived organizational support is
neither expected to affect independence in the workplace nor to mediate the relationship
between transformational leadership and independence in the workplace. Employees who
consider themselves influential tend usually to believe that they have a significant control
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

over their jobs (Corsun and Enz, 1999). In addition, experience and knowledge that
employees gain by working in the organization over time, rather than perceived
organizational support, can be the base for assuming greater independence in the workplace
(Suifan et al., 2015). In this context, job independence is seen as closely related to
empowerment but not to perceived organizational support (Petter et al., 2002; Spreitzer,
1996).

6. Conclusions, implications and research limitations

6.1 Conclusions
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of transformational leadership on
perceived organizational support and some dimensions of employees’ creativity in the
banking sector in Jordan. Additionally, the effect of perceived organizational support on
some dimensions of employees’ creativity is investigated. The mediating role of perceived
organizational support on the relationship between transformational leadership and some
dimensions of employees’ creativity is also explored. This is one of the first studies to
examine the proposed relationships in Jordan in general and in Jordanian banks in
particular.
The study revealed that transformational leadership positively enhances perceived
organizational support and some dimensions of employees’ creativity.
The finding showed that perceived organizational support does not significantly
contribute to some dimensions of employees’ creativity. In addition, the mediating effect of
perceived organizational support on the relationship between transformational leadership
and some dimensions of employees’ creativity is not significant. This finding is attributed
mainly to local culture in Jordan, which hinders managers from acting as leaders. The
finding could also be attributed to the question items used to measure creativity which could
have been perceived by respondents as measures of independence in the workplace.
Perceived organizational support is not expected to increase job independence levels,
particularly in the banking sector, which is characterized by conventional procedures and
strict policies.

6.2 Managerial implications

Managers in Jordanian banks should adopt a transformational leadership style to
enhance perceived organizational support and employees’ creativity. Employees are
 MRR essential resources of any organization, and a sustainable competitive advantage
41,1 cannot be achieved without their sincere participation, satisfaction and creativity.
Managers must change traditional managerial styles and place more emphasis on
increasing perceived organizational support by employees to make employees feel that
they are valuable assets for their organizations and that their well-being is important.
This will encourage employees to put more effort into their work and inspire creativity.
126 However, the research results indicate that perceived organizational support neither
enhances some dimensions of employees’ creativity nor mediates the relationship
between transformational leadership and some dimensions of employees’ creativity.
Managers should, therefore, take proactive actions to ensure that employees will
receive the support and encouragement they need and appreciate to be creative.
Managers should not rely on their own perceptions to assess the support provided to
employees but should instead evaluate how employees perceive the provided support.
This approach will require managers to act as real leaders rather than traditional
managers and to remove cultural barriers that inhibit openness to employees to
understand the support that is valued by employees.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

6.3 Limitations and future research

Although this study reached some important findings, it also has some limitations
that can be addressed in future studies. First, two dimensions of employees’
creativity, divergent thinking and rewards, were omitted because of reliability issues.
This omission might have affected the study results. Future studies with different
constructs are needed to re-explore the proposed relationships. Second, the research
sample included employees in the banks only. The banking managerial style is
usually different from that of other service organizations. Similar studies are needed
in other service sectors. Third, the effect of national culture was not considered in this
study. The results imply that national culture could have affected the results. Future
studies are needed to investigate the effect of national culture on the proposed
relationships.

References
Abbas, G., Iqbal, J., Waheed, A. and Riaz, M.N. (2012), “Relationship between transformational
leadership style and innovative work behavior in educational institutions”, Journal of
Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 19-32.
Abdallah, A. and Matsui, Y. (2009), “The impact of lean practices on mass customization and
competitive performance of mass-customizing plants”, The 20th Annual Production and
Operations Management Society (POMS) Conference Proceedings, Orlando, May, pp. 1-30.
Abdallah, A. and Phan, C.A. (2007), “The relationship between just-in-time production and human
resource management, and their impact on competitive performance”, Yokohama Business
Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 27-57.
Abdallah, A.B. and Matsui, Y. (2007), “The relationship between JIT production and manufacturing
strategy and their impact on JIT performance”, The 18th Annual Conference of the Production
and Operations Management Society (POMS) Proceedings, Dallas, May, pp. 1-35.
Abdallah, A.B., Anh, P.C. and Matsui, Y. (2016), “Investigating the effects of managerial and
technological innovations on operational performance and customer satisfaction of
manufacturing companies”, International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 10
Nos 2/3, pp. 153-183.
 Abdallah, A.B., Obeidat, B.Y., Aqqad, N.O., Al Janini, M.N. and Dahiyat, S.E. (2017), “An Employees’
integrated model of job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment: a
structural analysis in Jordan’s banking sector”, Communications and Network, Vol. 9 No. 1, creativity
pp. 28-53.
Ackoff, R.L. and Pourdehnad, J. (2009), “A useful distinction between managers and leaders”, Strategy
& Leadership, Vol. 37 No. 3.
Akoorie, M., Ahmed, I., Khairuzzaman Wan Ismail, W., Mohamad Amin, S. and Musarrat
Nawaz, M. (2013), “Social exchange perspective of individual guaxi network: evidence 127
from Malaysian Chinese employees”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 127-140.
Al-Fayoumi, N.A. and Abuzayed, B.M. (2009), “Assessment of the Jordanian banking sector within the
context of GATS agreement”, Banks and Banks System, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 69-79.
Al-Sa’di, A.F., Abdallah, A.B. and Dahiyat, S.E. (2017), “The mediating role of product and process
innovations on the relationship between knowledge management and operational performance
in manufacturing companies in Jordan”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 349-376.
Aletraris, L. (2010), “How satisfied are they and why? A study of job satisfaction, job rewards, gender
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

and temporary agency workers in Australia”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 8, pp. 1129-1155.
Amabile, T.M. (1988), “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10 No. 19, pp. 123-167.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 411-423.
Appu, A.V. and Sia, S.K. (2015), “Organizational social support: a predictor of employees workplace
creativity”, Annamalai International Journal of Business Studies & Research, p. 1 (Spec.1),
“5”, available at: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/109025169/organizational-social-
support-predictor-employees-workplace-creativity
Association of Banks in Jordan (2007), “Directory of banks operating in Jordan 1996-2006”, available at:
www.abj.org.jo/arjo/directoryofbankoperatinginjordan.aspx (accessed 14 August 2016).
Association of Banks in Jordan (2013), Annual Reports, available at: www.abj.org.jo/ar-jo/
annualreports.aspx (accessed 12 August 2016).
Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009), “Leadership: current theories, research, and future
directions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 421-449.
Ayoub, H.F., Abdallah, A.B. and Suifan, T.S. (2017), “The effect of supply chain integration on technical
innovation in Jordan: the mediating role of knowledge management”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 594-616.
Baran, B.E., Shanock, L.R. and Miller, L.R. (2012), “Advancing organizational support theory
into the twenty-first century world of work”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 123-147.
Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), Improving Organisational Effectiveness through Transformational
Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1993), Surpassing Ourselves: An Inquiry into the Nature and
Implications of Expertise, Open Court, Chicago, IL.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
 MRR Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Routledge, New York.
41,1
Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. and Allen, J.S. (1995), “Further assessment of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of
transactional and transformational leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4,
pp. 468-478.
Chen, C.X., Williamson, M.G. and Zhou, F.H. (2012), “Reward system design and group creativity: an
experimental investigation”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 87 No. 6, pp. 1885-1911.
128
Cheung, M.F.Y. and Wong, C.-S. (2011), “Transformational leadership, leader support, and employee
creativity”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 656-672.
Corsun, D.L. and Enz, C.A. (1999), “Predicting psychological empowerment among service workers: the
effect of support-based relationships”, available at: http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/
615 (accessed 4 May 2017).
Eisenberger, R. and Aselage, J. (2009), “Incremental effects of reward on experienced performance
pressure: positive outcomes for intrinsic interest and creativity”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 95-117.
Eisenberger, R. and Stinglhamber, F. (2011), Perceived Organizational Support: Fostering Enthusiastic
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

and Productive Employees, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational support”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-507.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L. and Rhoades, L. (2002), “Perceived
supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 565-573.
Elkins, T.K. and Keller, R.T. (2003), “Leadership in research and development organizations: a
literature review and conceptual framework”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 Nos 4/5,
pp. 587-606.
Ericsson, K.A., Prietula, M.J. and Cokely, E.T. (2007), “The making of an expert”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 85 Nos 7/8, pp. 114-121.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fu, Y. and Lihua, Z. (2012), “Organizational justice and perceived organizational support”, Nankai
Business Review International, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 145-166.
Garver, M.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1999), “Logistics research methods: employing structural equation
modelling to test for construct validity”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 33-57.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C. and Farh, J.-L. (2009), “Employee learning orientation, transformational
leadership and employee creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4,
pp. 765-778.
Greenberg, J. (1990), “Organizational justice: yesterday, today and tomorrow”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 399-432.
Grewal, D., Levy, M. and Kumar, V. (2009), “Customer experience management in retailing: an
organizing framework”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Guay, R.P. (2013), “The relationship between leader fit and transformational leadership”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 55-73.
Gupta, V. and Singh, S. (2012), “How leaders impact employee creativity: a study of Indian R&D
laboratories”, Management Research Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 66-88.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-279.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
 Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, The Employees’
Guilford Press, New York, NY.
creativity
Haynes, B.P. and Martens, Y. (2011), “Creative workplace: instrumental and symbolic support for
creativity”, Facilities, Vol. 29 Nos 1/2, pp. 63-79.
Herrmann, D. and Felfe, J. (2014), “Effects of leadership style, creativity technique and personal
initiative on employee creativity”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 209-227.
Hu, H., Gu, Q. and Chen, J. (2013), “How and when does transformational leadership affect
organizational creativity and innovation? Critical review and future directions”, Nankai Business
129
Review International, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 147-166.
Hyypia, M. and Parjanen, S. (2013), “Boosting creativity with transformational leadership in fuzzy
front-end innovation processes”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and
Management, Vol. 8, pp. 22-41.
Ibrahim, H.I., Isa, A. and Shahbudin, A.S.M. (2016), “Organizational support and creativity: the
role of developmental experiences as a moderator”, Procedia Economics and Finance,
Vol. 35, pp. 509-514.
Jabri, M. (1991), “The development of conceptually independent subscales in the maesurement of modes
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

of problem solving”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 975-983.
Jyoti, J. and Dev, M. (2015), “The impact of transformational leadership on employee creativity: the role
of learning orientation”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 78-98.
Kirkbride, P. (2006), “Developing transformational leaders: the full range leadership model in action”,
Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 23-32.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed., The Guilford Press,
New York.
Krishnan, J. and Mary, V.S. (2012), “Perceived organizational support-an overview on its
antecedents and consequences”, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Vol. 2
No. 4, pp. 1016-1022.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
fairness in social relationships”, in Gergen, K., Greenberg, M. and Willis, R. (Eds), Social
Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 27-55.
McLean, D. (2005), “Organizational culture’s influence on creativity and innovation: a review of the
literature and implications for human resource development laird”, Advances in Developing
Human Resources, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 226-246.
MacKinnon, D. (2008), Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis”, Lawrence Erlbaum, New York,
NY.
Malik, M.A.R., Butt, A.N. and Choi, J.N. (2015), “Rewards and employee creative performance:
moderating effects of creative self-efficacy, reward importance, and locus of control”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 59-74.
Markova, G. and Ford, C. (2011), “Is money the panacea? Rewards for knowledge workers”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 813-823.
Mittal, S. and Dhar, R.L. (2015), “Transformational leadership and employee creativity: mediating role
of creative self-efficacy and moderating role of knowledge sharing”, Management Decision,
Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 894-910.
Neves, P. and Eisenberger, R. (2014), “Perceived organizational support and risk taking”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 187-205.
Nilsson, P., Andersson, H.I. and Ejlertsson, G. (2013), “The work experience measurement scale
(WEMS): a useful tool in workplace health promotion”, Work: A Journal of Prevention,
Assessment & Rehabilitation, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 379-387.
 MRR Obeidat, B.Y., Masa’deh, R.M. and Abdallah, A.B. (2014), “The relationships among human resource
management practices, organizational commitment, and knowledge management processes: a
41,1 structural equation modeling approach”, International Journal of Business and Management,
Vol. 9 No. 3, p. 926.
Obeidat, B.Y., Abdallah, A.B., Aqqad, N.O., Akhoershiedah, A. and Maqableh, M. (2017), “The effect of
intellectual capital on organizational performance: the mediating role of knowledge sharing”,
Communications and Network, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-27.
130
Özarallı, N. (2015), “Linking empowering leader to creativity: the moderating role of psychological (felt)
empowerment”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 181, pp. 366-376.
Peachey, J.W., Burton, L.J. and Wells, J.E. (2014), “Examining the influence of transformational
leadership, organizational commitment, job embeddedness, and job search behaviors on
turnover intentions in intercollegiate athletics”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 740-755.
Peterson, S.J., Walumbwa, F.O., Byron, K. and Myrowitz, J. (2009), “CEO positive psychological traits,
transformational leadership, and firm performance in high technology start-up and established
firms”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 348-368.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

Petter, J., Byrnes, P., Choi, D.-L., Fegan, F. and Miller, R. (2002), “Dimensions and patterns in employee
empowerment: assessing what matters to street-level bureaucrats”, Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 377-400.
Rao, M.S. (2014), “Transformational leadership – an academic case study”, Industrial and Commercial
Training, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 150-154.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment to the organization: the
contribution of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 6,
pp. 825-836.
Robinson, R.N.S. and Beesley, L.G. (2010), “Linkages between creativity and intention to quit: an
occupational study of chefs”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 765-776.
Runco, M.A., Plucker, J.A. and Lim, W. (2001), “Development and psychometric integrity of a measure
of ideational behavior”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 393-400.
Salaymeh, M. (2013), “Creativity and interactive innovation in the banking sector and its impact on the
degree of customers’ acceptance of the services provided”, International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 139-151.
Sanhueza, J.A. (2011), “Leadership development and its effects on organizational performance”,
Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp. 1-91.
Sawalha, I. and Meaton, J. (2012), “The Arabic culture of Jordan and its impacts on a wider Jordanian
adoption of business continuity management”, Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency
Planning, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 84-95.
Schweitzer, J. (2014), “Leadership and innovation capability development in strategic alliances”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 442-469.
Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2013), Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, 6th ed.,
John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex.
Self, D.R., Armenakis, A.A. and Schraeder, M. (2007), “Organizational change content, process, and
context: a simultaneous analysis of employee reactions”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 211-229.
Shalley, C.E. and Gilson, L.L. (2004), “What leaders need to know: a review of social and
contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 33-53.
 Shehadeh, R.M., Al-Zu’bi, Z., Abdallah, A.B. and Maqableh, M. (2016), “Investigating critical factors Employees’
affecting the operational excellence of service firms in Jordan”, Journal of Management Research,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 18-49. creativity
Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J.M. (2003), “Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence
from Korea”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 703-714.
Shore, L.M. and Shore, T.H. (1995), “Perceived organizational support and organizational justice”, in
Cropanzano, R. and Kacmar, K.M. (Eds), Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing
Social Climate at Work, Quorum press: Westport, CT, pp. 149-164. 131
Shrafat, F.D., Akhorshaideh, A., Abdallah, A.B. and Al-Zu’bi, Z. (2016), “Understanding formality and
informality in information system pre-evaluation (ISIE) process: examining case research from
an actor network theory ANT perspective”, Journal of Management Research, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 77-109.
Shrout, P.E. and Bolger, N. (2002), “Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new
procedures and recommendations”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 422-445.
Simosi, M. (2012), “Disentangling organizational support construct”, Personnel Review, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 301-320.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

Sosik, J.J. and Jung, D.I. (2010), Full Range Leadership Development: Pathways for People, Profits, and
Planet, Routledge, New York, NY.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and
validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 483-504.
Stinglhamber, F., Marique, G., Caesens, G., Hanin, D. and Zanet, F.D. (2015), “The influence of
transformational leadership on followers’ affective commitment”, Career Development
International, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 583-603.
Suifan, T.S., Abdallah, A.B. and Diab, H. (2016), “The influence of work life balance on turnover
intention in private hospitals: the mediating role of work life conflict”, European Journal of
Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 20, pp. 126-139.
Suifan, T.S., Abdallah, A.B. and Sweis, R.J. (2015), “The effect of a manager’s emotional intelligence on
employees work outcomes in the insurance industry in Jordan”, International Business Research,
Vol. 8 No. 9, pp. 67-82.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Tatoglu, E. and Erkutlu, H. (2008), “The impact of transformational leadership on organizational and
leadership effectiveness: the Turkish case”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 708-726.
Tidd, J. (2001), “Innovation management in context: environment, organization and performance”,
International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 169-183.
Trybou, J., Gemmel, P., Pauwels, Y., Henninck, C. and Clays, E. (2014), “The impact of organizational
support and leader–member exchange on the work related behaviour of nursing professionals:
the moderating effect of professional and organizational identification”, Journal of Advanced
Nursing, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 373-382.
Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M. and Schlesinger, L.A. (2009),
“Customer experience creation: determinants, dynamics and management strategies”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 31-41.
Waseem, M. (2010), “Relative importance of pay level satisfaction, career development opportunities
and supervisor support in perceived organizational support”, Journal of Yasar University, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 3264-3277.
Williams, S.D. (2004), “Personality, attitude, and leader influences on divergent thinking and creativity
in organizations”, European Journal of Innovation Management , Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 187-204.
 MRR Winkelen, C.V. and McDermott, R. (2010), “Learning expert thinking processes: using KM to structure
the development of expertise”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 557-572.
41,1
Zhang, X. and Bartol, K. (2010), “Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influence
of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement”, The
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 107-128.
Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2001), “When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the
expression of voice”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 682-696.
132
Further reading
Galbraith, J.R. (1982), “Designing the innovating organization”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 5-25.

Corresponding author
Ayman Bahjat Abdallah can be contacted at: [email protected]
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:21 07 March 2018 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]